Thursday, January 24, 2013

JJ Abrams: Genius or fool?

If he's planning on doing to Star Wars what he did to the Mission Impossible franchise, we all better be scared. He takes over and, boom, Ethan's married to some woman you don't know and don't care about. Ethan married? Who even wanted that?

It's a spy movie.

So I shudder to think what JJ will be doing.

If he's going to do more like his TV show Fringe? I could get behind that.

But regardless of what he does, he does realize that it's like 90% chance of us hating it, right?

Just because he's not George Lucas.

So is JJ a daredevil, someone sure of who he is and what he brings to the table or just incredibly naive?

Thursday, January 24, 2013. Chaos and violence continue, 2
demonstrators are assaulted by Nouri's police in Mosul, calls for
listening to the protesters intensify, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta
announces an important change and many offer their reactions, we go
back over Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's very bad appearance
before a Senate Committee yesterday, and more.

Starting in the United States, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Hillary's
performance in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing yesterday
should have resulted in her being condemned -- both for how she
presented herself and for what she said. We called her out in yesterday's snapshot. In addition, Wally covered it in "Facts matter, Hillary (Wally)," Ava
covered it in "20 are still at risk says Hillary in an aside (Ava)," Ruth covered it in "Like watching Richard Nixon come back to life" and Kat covered it in "Can she not answer even one damn question?"
Kat admits that she was so surprised and disgusted by Hillary's
performance that she didn't attend the afternoon hearing with us because
she couldn't take seeing Hillary like that again. Ava points out that
Hillary acted out in every negative stereotypical was possible. Ruth
compares her to Nixon when it comes to answering questions. They went
into the hearing expecting Hillary to sail through it in a professional
and adult manner. I did have doubts and by the time Hillary was
screaming and waving her hands -- above the shoulders -- like a lunatic,
I'm sorry. I supported her in 2008. I don't see supporting a
presidential run again.

I have never seen lunatic behavior like
that in a hearing and I was present a few years back when a Ranking
Member stormed out in the middle of a witness' remarks, loudly and
intentionally slamming a door behind him. Everyone stopped -- the
witness stopped testifying -- and we all appeared to wonder, "What the
hell is wrong with Steve Buyer?" I disagreed with Buyer on many things
(he was very right, however, on the burial grounds for military members
who were buried in this country and overseas -- he was a champion on
that issue and deserves praise for it) but I had never seen anything so
rude. I sat through Condi Rice testifying as a hostile witness or at
least to a hostile Congress, I sat through Condi testifying as a woman
with red paint (representing blood) on her hands invaded Condi's space.
Condi didn't scream and yell. In fact, I said to Kat, "I'm sort of
impressed with how calm Condi remained and with the fact that she didn't
try to sick security guards on the woman" (Diane Wilson). (I think
John Kerry responded very well to an outburst in the midst of his
opening remarks at today's Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing.)

Some 'press' -- like the Drama Queen at the Washington Post --
are distorting the hearing, especially a key exchange (the one Wally
covered accurately last night). They're rushing to praise Hillary and
calling Senator Ron Johnson a "tea partier." I have no idea what he is
(other than Republican), yesterday was the first time I ever laid eyes
on him. But I don't need to know his backstory to know what happened in
the hearing.

Senator Ron Johnson: Mr. Chairman and
Madam Secretary, I'd like to join my colleagues in thanking your for
service sincerely and also I appreciate the fact that you're here
testifying and glad that you're looking in good health.

Secretary Hillary Clinton: Thank you.

Senator
Ron Johnson: Did you, were you fully aware of -- again, I realize how
big your job is, you know everything's erupting in the Middle East this
time. Were you fully aware of these 20 incidents reported in the ARP in
real time? I mean --

Secretary Hillary Clinton: I-I was aware
of the ones that were brought to my attention. They were part of, uh,
our ongoing discussion about the um-um deteriorating threat environment
in uh eastern Libya uh, we certainly were, uh, very conscience of them
was assured by our security professionals that, uh, repairs were
underway additional security upgrades in place.

Senator Ron
Johnson: Okay. Thank you. Did you see personally the cable on -- I
believe it was August 12th -- specifically asking for basically
reinforcements for the-the security detail that was going to be
evacuating -- or leaving -- in August? Did you see that personally?

Secretary Hillary Clinton: No, sir.

Senator
Ron Johnson: Okay. Uhm, when you read the ARB, it strikes me, uh, how
certain the people were that the attacks started 9:40 pm Benghazi time.
When was the first time you spoke to, or have you ever spoken to, the
returnees, the evacuees? Did you personally speak to those folks?

Secretary
Hillary Clinton: I've spoken to, uh, one of them but I waited until
after the ARP had done its investigation because I did not want there to
be [laughing] any issue that I had spoken to anyone before the ARP
conducted its investigation.

Senator Ron Johnson: How many people were evacuated from Libya?

Secretary Hillary Clinton: Uhm. Well, you, uh, the numbers are a little bit hard to pin down because of our other friends --

Senator Ron Johnson: Approximately?

Secretary Hillary Clinton: Approximately 25 to 30.

Senator Ron Johnson: Uh, did anybody in the State Dept talk to those folks shortly afterwards?

Secretary
Hillary Clinton: Uh, there was discussion going on uh-uh afterwards.
But once the investigation started, the FBI spoke to them before we
spoke to them and so other than our people in Tripoli which -- I think
you're talking about Washington, right?

Senator Ron Johnson:
Yeah. Yeah. The point I'm making is a very simple phone call to these
individuals I think would have ascertained immediately that there was no
protest prior to this. I mean this attack started at 9:40 p.m.
Benghazi time. It was an assault and I appreciate the fact that you
called it an assault. But I mean, I'm going back to then, Ambassador
Rice five days later going to the Sunday shows and what I would say
purposefully misleading the American public.

Secretary Hillary Clinton: Well, Senator --

Senator
Ron Johnson: Why-why-why wasn't that known? And, again, I appreciate
the fact that the transparency of this hearing but why weren't we
transparent at that point and time?

Secretary Hillary Clinton:
Well, first of all, Senator, I would say that once the assault happened
and once we got our people rescued out, our most immediate concern was,
number one, taking care of their injuries because, as I said, I still
have a DSA agent still at Walter Reed seriously injured, getting them
into Frankfurt-Ramstein to get taken care of, the FBI going over
immediately to talk to them, we did not think it was appropriate for us
to talk to them before the FBI conducted their interviews. And we did
not -- I think this is accurate, sir -- I certainly did not know of any
reports that contradicted the IC talking points at the time that
Ambassador Rice went on the TV shows. And, you know, I just want to say
that, uhm, you know, people have, uh, accused Ambassador Rice and the
administration of, uh, misleading the Americans, I can say trying to be
in the middle of this and understanding what was going on, nothing could
be further from the truth. Was information developing? Was the
situation fluid? Would we reach conclusions later that weren't reached
initially and I appreciate --

Senator Ron Johnson: But, Madam
Secretary, do you disagree with me that a simple phone call to those
evacuees to determine what happened wouldn't have ascertained what
happened immediately that there was no protest? I mean that was -- that
was a piece of information that could have been easily, easily
obtained.

Secretary Hillary Clinton: But Senator, again --

Senator Ron Johnson: -- within hours, if not days.

Secretary
Hillary Clinton: Senator, I, you know, when you're in these positions,
the last thing you want to do is interfere with any other process going
--

Senator Ron Johnson: I understand, I realize ---

Secretary Hillary Clinton: Number two --

Senator Ron Johnson: -- that's a good excuse.

Secretary
Hillary Clinton: No, it's a fact. Number two, I would recommend
highly you read both what the ARB said about it and the classified ARB
because even today there are questions being raised. Now, we have no
doubt they were terrorists, they were militants, they attacked us, they
killed our people, but what was going on and why they were doing what
they were doing --

Senator Ron Johnson: No, no, no.

Secretary Hillary Clinton: -- is still -- is still --

Senator
Ron Johnson: Again, we were misled that there were supposedly protests
and then something sprang out of that -- an assault sprang out of that
-- and that was easily --

Secretary Hillary Clinton: But-but --

Senator Ron Johnson: -- ascertained that that was not the fact.

Secretary Hillary Clinton: But-but --

Senator Ron Johnson: -- and the American people could have known that within days and they didn't know that.

Secretary
Hillary Clinton: With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead
Americans! [This is where Hillary's crazy hands, like the volume of her
voice, begin going all over the map.]

Senator Ron Johnson: I understand.

Secretary
Hillary Clinton: Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys
out for a walk one night who decided they'd go kill some Americans!
What difference at this point does it make!It is our job to figure
out what happened and to do everything we can to prevent it from every
happening again, Senator! Now, honestly, I will do my best to answer
your questions about this but the fact is people were trying in real
time to get to the best information. The IC has a process, I
understand, going with the other committees to explain how these talking
points came out but, you know, to be clear, it is from my perspective
less important today looking backwards as to why these militants decided
they did it then to find them and then maybe we'll figure out what was
going on in the meantime.

Senator Ron Johnson: Okay, thank you Madam Secretary.If
you applaud that performance by Hillary I don't know who you are or
what you believe in. You don't believe in the Constitution -- not
enough to support it -- nor do you believe in an informed society. You
do believe in all the b.s. Bully Boy Bush put the United States through
after 9-11.

As Wally points out in his piece, there are things
called "facts" that actually are facts but facts are not Hillary
Clinton's personal opinions no matter how loud she gets in hearing.

Second,
the issue of Susan Rice came up repeatedly. During other questioning
on the topic, Hillary testified she wasn't present so she can't speak to
that process or what happened or anything. But with Johnson, she wants
to assure him what happened -- what happened when she wasn't present.
She knows those aren't facts, she knows they're at best "hearsay."

Third,
she's being asked a basic question. I'd be a real hypocrite if I
disagreed with Johnson because the issue of talking to someone who was
present during the attack before going on TV to pontificate? I raised
that in the November 15th snapshot. And Johnson was right yesterday. You do have an obligation to speak to someone.

I've
never been more disappointed in Hillary or more ashamed. We're not
going to debate the Susan Rice nonsense, it's been covered. We're going
to address Hillary's nonsense and we have to because the press doesn't
want to do their damn job -- as usual.

Hillary said she took
accountability. If you burn my house down and show up the next day as
I'm going through the charred remains and you say, "I take
accountability," I may believe you . . . up until you start yelling and
screaming. If you take accountability, then you damn well learned
something from the experience. Hillary learned nothing. It's a cheap
line ("I take accountability") intended to silence people. You either
take accountability or you don't.

She's taken no accountability.
She's done nothing to indicate she has. She's done nothing to improve
her knowledge of the attack. She's done nothing to secure the
diplomatic staff around the world. On the last one, as Ava so aptly
pointed out in her report, as an aside, Hillary tosses out in the
hearing that at least 20 US diplomatic outposts are currently at risk.
I'm missing the moment where Hillary or one of her staffers rushed
before Congress in the last months to demand funding for these 20 at
risk posts.

Don't lie to the country and claim you took accountability when you so obviously didn't.

Gore
Vidal used to praise Hillary for her manners and grace. Neither was
visible yesterday. If you didn't get it from the exchange, she was
being flattered by Johnson, she was being praised. She flew off the
handle and started screaming and acting like a crazy person while she
was being treated with kid gloves. I was offended by her behavior. She
is not just a former First Lady, she's also a former US Senator and she
fully knows how to conduct herself in the Senate. There was no excuse
for her behavior. Senator John McCain was probably the most severe
critic she faced yesterday. John McCain did not yell at her, he did not
fly off the handle. Let's move over to what she said while she was
acting so crazy.Senator Ron Johnson: Again, we were misled that there were
supposedly protests and then something sprang out of that -- an assault
sprang out of that -- and that was easily --

Secretary Hillary Clinton: But-but --

Senator Ron Johnson: -- ascertained that that was not the fact.

Secretary Hillary Clinton: But-but --

Senator Ron Johnson: -- and the American people could have known that within days and they didn't know that.

Secretary
Hillary Clinton: With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead
Americans! [This is where Hillary's crazy hands, like the volume of her
voice, begin going all over the map.]

There were four
dead Americans and they died because of failures within the
administration. You can claim to take accountability all you damn well
want. But Ranking Member Bob Corker put one question to Hillary over
and over (three times) and she ignored it. 'You claim you didn't see
any of the various requests for more security.' Corker wanted to know
how that wouldn't happen to you again or the next person in your
position? Hillary couldn't answer him. That's a failure. She refused
to answer him. There are four dead Americans, Secretary Clinton, and
you've done nothing to ensure that when people in the field ask for
additional security, these requests and their outcomes are made known to
the Secretary of State.

Let's drop back to earlier:

[. . .] once we got our people rescued out, our most immediate concern was,
number one, taking care of their injuries because, as I said, I still
have a DSA agent still at Walter Reed seriously injured, getting them
into Frankfurt-Ramstein to get taken care of, the FBI going over
immediately to talk to them, we did not think it was appropriate for us
to talk to them before the FBI conducted their interviews.

No,
Hillary's not a scrub nurse or an ER technician or Chief of Staff. Her
first concern was not getting treatment for US citizens who had been
medically transported to a US military base. This was not Terms of Endearment and she is not Shirley MacLaine
screaming, "Give my daughter the shot!" There's a thing -- and we've
gone over this repeatedly in the snapshots since the Benghazi attack --
known as standard operating procedure. It wasn't followed repeatedly.
And if Hillary had to scream and throw a fit to get American doctors and
nurses on a US military base to treat wounded Americans, then the whole
process is screwed up. Instead of lying to Congress, Hillary should
have been thanking those doctors and nurses who were the first medical
team to treat the injured Americans. Instead like a cut-throat
politician, she wanted to throw them to the wolves to protect herself.
Shame, shame, shame.

Though she never seemed to get that
Johnson's point was Susan Rice -- or anyone being dispatched by the
administration -- should have spoken to at least one person present
during the assault before presenting a case to the American people,
Hillary wanted you to know that she didn't speak to anyone. She joked
and laughed about that. (She was mocking the days of Travel Gate, when
she was First Lady and accused of tampering with files. I've never seen
her act so stupid in my life. She was full of hubris.)

She also damned herself yet again. Bill knows when to keep his mouth shut. Hillary apparently never learned.

This
was the logic -- go to the excerpt for the quotes: 'I didn't speak to
any of the 25 to 30 US citizens present during the assault because an
investigation was going on. I'm accountable. I'm the one responsible.
Now that the investigation is over -- and I'm about to leave office --
I've spoken to 1 person.'

Did she not get how that damned her?

I
don't buy the lie that she couldn't speak to people because of an
investigation. You are the Secretary of State, one of the outposts you
oversee was attacked, you have every right to speak to the people
present and you have an obligation to as well because you need to ensure
that whatever happened does not happen at another diplomatic outpost.

But
forget the lie. 'I'm accountable' didn't manage, now that the
investigation is over, to speak to all the people. That's the first
thing she should have done. That is her role. We damn well expected
Donald Rumsfeld to visit the wounded at Walter Reed when he was
Secretary of Defense but Hillary thinks she gets a pass, that she
doesn't have to check in with her staff?

Now let's go
back to her emotional outburst, where she was screaming, ranting and
waving her hands like a crazed bag lady on Southeast 1st Street and not a
public servant testifying before the Senate.

Secretary
Hillary Clinton: Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys
out for a walk one night who decided they'd go kill some Americans!
What difference at this point does it make!It is our job to figure
out what happened and to do everything we can to prevent it from every
happening again, Senator! Now, honestly, I will do my best to answer
your questions about this but the fact is people were trying in real
time to get to the best information. The IC has a process, I
understand, going with the other committees to explain how these talking
points came out but, you know, to be clear, it is from my perspective
less important today looking backwards as to why these militants decided
they did it then to find them and then maybe we'll figure out what was
going on in the meantime.

What difference does it make at
this point? None to you? You haven't even spoken to all serving under
you who were present at the attack, all these months later you
haven't. You didn't visit the wounded in Walter Reed. You didn't do a
damn thing. But if your "job" is to make sure it doesn't happen again,
then it damn well matters what happened and why.

And Hillary
knows that. The why always matters if you have a legal degree. The
motive, the intent. That is drilled into the head.

And her not
caring about the why is so typical of Bully Boy Bush and the rabid
mind-set after 9-11 where we were never to question why the attacks
happened, our only focus was supposed to be on lashing out. If you want
to prevent other attacks, you damn well better figure out why the first
ones happened. It was an ahistorical attack on learning and academia.
She should be ashamed of herself.

In kinder words, I made many
of these points yesterday and hoped that it came through and planned for
us to move on to another topic. But what happened was appalling and
instead of addressing that we have a press that wants to applaud her.
She's is not a celebrity. She is a public servant and she is answerable
to the people. I would still like to address Senator Bob Casey at a
later date -- I felt he had an important point -- but that's more than
enough Hillary and I'll consider us done with the topic here unless
something forces us to relive it again. (Such as an attack on one of
the 20 facilities she testified were not sufficiently protected at
present.) I didn't seek out this topic, I didn't want to write it but
we didn't whore, we talked about what went down and that is what went
down.

Let's go to a better and more important topic.
Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs
Committee. Her office issued the following:

Sen. Murray's First Bill in the New Congress Helps Catastrophically Wounded Veterans Start a Family

Murray
calls for quick action on bill to end the VA's ban on In Vitro
Fertilization which has prevented thousands of veterans with serious
wounds to reproductive organs from accessing fertility care

Last Congress Murray's bill passed the Senate unanimously only to be stalled in the House of Representatives

(Washington,
D.C.) -- Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray reintroduced legislation that
ends the ban on in vitro fertilization (IVA) services at VA in order to
help severely wounded veterans start families. Murray's bill, the Women Veterans and Other Health Care Improvements Act of 2013
also builds upon previous law to improve VA services for women veterans
and veterans with families. Late last year, Senator Murray was able to
pass the bill through the U.S. Senate after delivering an impassioned speech
on the Senate floor that described the challenges veterans and their
families face in accessing IVF. Unfortunately, the bill failed to move
in the House of Representatives in time to make its way to the
President's desk after Republican leaders there expressed opposition.

"There
is absolutely no reason that this bill should not move quickly to the
President's desk," said Senator Murray. "It was passed unanimously in
the Senate and the House has a responsibility to our most seriously
wounded veterans and their spouses to act. These are veterans who have
sustained serious and deeply impactful wounds and who are simply asking
for help to begin a family. We owe them nothing less."

Department
of Defense (DOD) data show that between 2003 and 2012 nearly 2000
servicemembers have suffered reproductive and urinary tract trauma. The
reliance on foot patrols in Afghanistan and the prevalence of
improvised explosive devices has left servicemembers far more
susceptible to these injuries. In fact, these data show a clear
increase in injuries of this nature in recent years.

Veterans who
have severe reproductive and urinary tract injuries and spinal cord
injuries (SCI) often need highly specialized treatments and procedures
like IVF to conceive. However, under current law, IVF is expressly
excluded from fertility services that are provided by the VA to veterans
or their spouses. This is a significant barrier for veterans with SCI
and genital and urinary tract injuries and as a result they have to seek
care outside of the VA. DOD currently provides access to IVF services
under the Tricare program and coverage for IVF and other fertility
treatments at no charge to severely combat wounded servicemembers.
Senator Murray's bill would provide veterans with the same access.

Senator Murray's bill is paid for by
allowing the VA Secretary to charge a small fee to large corporations
contracting with VA, and using those funds only for providing the
treatment authorized by the bill.

The
above is highly important and hopefully the House will quickly address
the bill. Senator Murray was present at hearings when the first wave of
female veterans of today's wars began offering their testimonies to
Congress. Back then, she wasn't the Chair of the Senate Veterans
Affairs Committee. And she could take the attitude of, "I've got a lot
on my plate and am just going to focus on what's right before me."
There's certainly enough to do that she could get away with that. But
in 2005 and 2006, as one woman veteran with a child went before the
House and Senate over and over to offer testimony about their VA
experience, the issue of how you get an appointment and then the next
series of juggling comes up. Taking a weekend appointment, if one's
available, for example, may mean you don't miss work if you work outside
the home, but it still means, if you're a parent, you're going to have
to juggle child care issues. Women who work within the home and who
have children also spoke of the struggles to get an appointment and then
to make the appointment. Providing onsite child care is smart because
it allows women and men with children to keep needed health care
appointments. It's also smart in another way. Among the horror stories
the first wave of women veterans from today's wars told Congress was
that they were treated like meat by some other male veterans, that they
were catcalled and harassed. Never should have happened. It's
outrageous that they're trying to get their medical needs met and
they've got deal with that. Becoming child-friendly could also help
send the message that VA hospitals are medical facilities, they are not
strip clubs, they are not gentlemen's social clubs.

Today at the
US Pentagon, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and the Chair of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, held a press conference
to formally announce that women's role in the US military had been
expanded as the Pentagon began down the road of ending the exclusion
rule which refused to allow women to (officially) serve in direct combat
roles. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta: One of my
priorities as Secretary of Defense has been to remove as many barriers
as possible for talented and qualified people to be able to serve this
country in uniform. Our nation was built on the premise of the citizen
soldier. In our democracy, I believe it is the responsibility of every
citizen to protect the nation and every citizen who can meet the
qualifications of service should have that opportunity. To that end,
I've been working closely with General Dempsey and the Joint Chiefs of
Staff. We've been working for well over a year to examine how can we
expand the opportunities for women in the armed services? It's clear to
all of us that women are contributing in unprecedented ways to the
military's mission of defending the nation. Women represent 15 percent
of the force, over 200,000. They're serving in a growing number of
critical roles -- on and off the battlefield. The fact is that they
have become an integral part of our ability to perform our mission.
Over more than a decade of war, they have demonstrated courage and skill
and patriotism. 153 women in uniform died serving this nation in Iraq
and Afghanistan. Female service members have faced the reality of
combat, proven their willingness to fight and, yes, to die to defend
their fellow Americans.

Iraq War veteran Jessica Lynch released the following statement:The announcement by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to allow women to
enter combat roles is good news for our military. For years, women have
been integral to our successes in the fight for freedom throughout the
world. We as Americans must continue to not only support our men and
women in the military but also become their advocates, pushing our
leaders to ensure those individuals have proper training and equipment.
The total support of our military - those in combat and those here at
home -protects every American.

I want to make it very clear I
am sick to hell of people bashing Jessica Lynch. We have covered this
repeatedly. Jessica Lynch didn't lie to anyone. She said she wasn't a
hero, she poked holes in the Bush administration's story. She did so at
a time when he was riding high in the polls and she was attacked for
it. I find it disgusting that today I've already seen two women attack
Jessica in columns. She did not lie. She has repeatedly stated that
her friend Lori Piestewa was the hero and she has done every thing she
can to honor her friend. I believe Jessica's wrong, she is a hero.
Maybe not in Iraq, but when she came back to the US, she could have
lied. It would have been so easy. Just go along with the White House's
official story. Instead she stood up to a popular White House and
said, "This story is not true." That took real bravery and character.
It's a real shame that anyone would feel the need to attack her. And
let me add to one of the attackers that maybe these sort of ill-advised
attacks, for example, are why you lost your radio show. And why no one
listeners mounted an effort to save your show.

Kristen Moulton (Salt Lake Tribune) spoke
to women veterans in Utah such as Iraq War veteran Tara Eal who states,
"We went through the front lines and I was in combat. I didn't have to
knock down any doors and, thankfully, I didn't have to shoot anybody.
But I was shot at and my truck was shot at." Dennis Hoey and Kevin Miller (Press Herald) speak
with Iraq War veteran Angela Baker who states, "There are no front
lines anymore. When I was over there, every single one of us, man or
woman, got shot at multiple times. We saw combat because we were in a
combat zone." Bill Briggs (NBC News) speaks
with a number of veterans including Afghanistan and Iraq War veteran
Julie Weckerlein who states, "There is definitely a sense of 'it's about
time.' This decision means the military is finally removing that
useless 'attached, but not assigned' verbiage that meant absolutely
nothing on the field, with the boots on the ground." Jake Tapper and Jessica Metzger (CNN) report
on Afghanistan War veteran Candace Fisher and her reaction, "It's a
formalization of what we've been experimenting with the last ten to
twelve years in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think that those two conflicts
have probably given the Army a pretty good idea of whether or not an
actual policy change was warranted." US House Rep and Iraq War veteran Tulsi Gabbard spoke with News Nation (MSNBC -- link is video) today.US
House Rep Tulsi Gabbard: . . . it is a moment of great significance.
It's very personal for me, obviously, not just for myself, but for all
of my sisters who I've had the honor of serving with, for all the women
who've ever worn the uniform, this change, this policy change from the
DoD really gives an official recognition to jobs, sacrifices and service
that women in uniform have been making for generations. [Responding to
comments that women aren't suited for the job] I have to smile a little
bit when I hear you say those things that the critics are talking
about. I've heard people cite studies talking about how women are not
well-equipped to serve in these different capacities and what goes
through my mind as you're saying that are the incredible women that I've
had the honor of serving with and those who I've heard great stories
about. Women like Sgt Leigh Ann Hester who was the first woman since
WWII to earn a Silver Star. She was a Military Police Sgt serving in
Iraq in 2005 and she led her squad of MPs against a very, very hot
insurgent attack, flanked the enemy, assaulted two trench lines and, at
the end, saved American lives. And it's stories like Sgt Leigh Ann
Hester's and countless women who throw out every argument that the
critics have said because it's real, these are patriots who are putting
their lives on the line for our country selflessly and, guess what, they
happen to be women.

Staff Sgt Kimberly Fahnestock Voelz died while serving in Iraq, killed December 14, 2003 in a bombing just outside Falluja. Matt Miller (Pennsylvania's Patriot News) speaks
with her mother Carol Fahnestock who states, "If they're up to it and
they can do the work, why not? I know that at the time few women were
doing what Kimmy was doing. She excelled at it. She loved it."

Statement
of Eleanor Smeal, President of the Feminist Majority Foundation On the
Decision to Remove Combat Restrictions on Women Serving in the Armed
Services

The Feminist Majority Foundation applauds the long awaited decision to
remove the combat restriction on women in the military. This is a
historic milestone in the fight for women's equality. The combat
restriction has been a sham. Women have been and are currently serving
in combat positions, but have received neither the recognition nor the
chance for promotion that men have enjoyed. We urge in its
implementation that all barriers based simply on the gender of members
of the armed services be removed, and that they be judged simply upon
their capabilities.
For years women in the military have been discriminated against because
of a cultural war that has finally ended on the position of women in the
military. The reality on the ground has finally become the reality of
public policy.
In 1980, when I was the President of the National Organization for
Women, I released the following statement: "Discrimination against
women...produces in the armed services exactly what it produces in the
society as a whole-wasted skills, talents and potential..." At that
time, we also addressed the false position that women do not serve in
combat roles, saying "The first myth to be dispelled is that women have
not been in combat...Women have served and will continue to serve in
combat environments under the same conditions, suffering the same risks
and injuries as men." Finally, our nation is recognizing this basic fact
and correcting this outrageous injustice that has denied women just
benefits and recognition for far too long.
In the fight for passage of the Equal Rights Amendment it was frequently
argued by opponents that women cannot have equal rights without sharing
equal responsibility. We have had more than our share of
responsibility. Now, because of the courageous service of women in the
armed services, women in the military are finally getting the
recognition they deserve.
###

Cindy Sheehan takes another side.
She rejects the inclusion arguing that it's going the wrong way.
Instead of opening roles to women, they should be restricting men out of
combat as well (thereby ending military adventures and wars). She
writes:As a woman and mother, I dismay on a daily basis that I didn’t better protect
my son from the gore-soaked claws of the US Army; and more importantly, as a
woman and mother (and now grandmother), I could NEVER, EVER in a million years
kill another woman or her child (or, innocent man, for that matter--and all of the oppressed/occupied peoples are innocent).

The
US military has long been a malevolent force in the world and war
jackals like Leon Panetta sit safely ensconced in their ivory towers
ordering
the poor and disadvantaged children of others to go and do their filthy
work. In my experienced opinion, adding more combat-able demographics is
nothing to celebrate in a sane world.

In Bizarro-USA (the opposite of the USA we have currently), access to education;
fulfilling employment with a decent wage; healthcare; a clean environment and
sustainable energy (with foods free of GMO’s and other toxins) should be our
basic human rights—not the one where the establishment confers the dishonorable
right to murder, or be murdered for the Evil Empire.

To
be really clear, Cindy's position is a feminist position. It's "a" not
"the." My own position is just one position as well. For myself, I've
done dozens of things that probably many women wouldn't want to do (and
that's just in bed! drum roll please) and other women do things I have
no interest in. I would never serve in combat, it's not something that
interests me. I do feel if it's something that interests another woman,
she should have every shot at achieving that. That doesn't make Cindy
wrong and it certainly doesn't make me right. Cindy raises serious
issues and I'm glad she does that. I'm also glad that she's willing and
able to present another feminist take.

Remember AFP has done a really great thing under
Rao, they've put their count online. The link goes to their count and
you can check that out and pull it up. They're being more open than
anyone would expect so good for AFP and for Prashant Rao.

This will only fuel tomorrow's protests and it also makes Nouri look
even more like a thug. The provincial council, even governor Atheel
al-Nujaifi, have made clear that the protesters have their support.
Nouri needs to bring his forces back to Baghdad. They're not helping
him or the crisis.

Kurdistan Regional Government Massoud Barzani went to Davos, Switzerland for the World Economic Conference. Alsumaria reports
that Barzani spoke with Turkey's Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu about
Iraq's political crisis and how it is only getting worse. Meanwhile
Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi and former prime minister and
National Alliance leader Ibrahim al-Jaafari have also met to discuss the
current crisis. Alsumaria reports
the two are in agreement that the laws passed need to serve the Iraqi
people and there is talk of having the protesters elect repreentatives
to convey their demands to provincial councils. As Wael Grace (Al Mada) notes
Iraqiya is currently boycotting Cabinet meetings. Iraqiya is the
political slate headed by Ayad Allawi which came in first in the 2010
parliamentary elections (Nouri's State of Law came in second). Iraqiya
is boycotting the meetings to protest Nouri's government ignoring the
demands of the protesters.

Dar Addustour columnist As Sheikh notes
that the protests have been taking place for about a month and that
they are especially welcomed in the south of Iraq where service is
especially poor and corruption rampant. Sheikh observes that the
failure to deal with the serious demands of the protesters has aided
support and that support has been growing with each successive protest. Nasiriyah reports the farmers in Dhi Qar are talking about organizing and joining the peaceful protests to demand their legitimate rights.

Nouri's been prime minister since May 2006 (he was named prime-minister
designate in April 2006). What does Iraq have to show for it? Nouri's a
very rich man today. He's amassed a great deal of wealth -- as his
children's spending demonstrates. He employs one son who is best
described as "dense" and one son-in-law who it is said couldn't get work
if Nouri wasn't his father-in-law. The Maliki family's done very
well. It's a shame the same can't be said for the Iraqi people Nouri is
supposed to be serving.

Moqtada al-Sadr is a cleric and movement leader in Iraq. He's a Shi'ite
who's been surprisingly vocal about an Iraqi identity encompassing
all. Iraqiya's Ayad Allawi is a Shi'ite and he heads a slate that's
rejected sects to call for a national identity. With provincial
elections scheduled for April, Nouri appears to be utilizing sectarian
divisions as an election tactic yet again. That's done a great deal of
damage to Iraqi society but that's apparently of little concern to him.

Kitabat reports
that the Sadr bloc withdrew from the Committee of Seven Ministers
yesterday in protest of the government's refusal to listen to the
demands of the protesters. This Committee was formed by Nouri's Cabinet
and Nouri had Deputy Prime Minister Hussain al-Shahristani head it.
While the western press has lavished al-Shahristani with sloppy wet
kisses for over seven days, the Iraqi press has noted the many
complaints against his actions -- that he's not listening to the
protesters, for example. The departure of the Sadr bloc is a huge blow
to the Committee and to al-Shahristani. In recent days, the Sadr bloc
has loudly called out the conditions in prison, noted that
al-Shahristani's (for-show) releases of prisoners confirm that many
innocents are languishing in Iraqi prisons and detention centers and
much more. A member of Moqtada's bloc tells All Iraq News that al-Sharistani's committee can't fix the problems because they are the problem.

The Iraq Times notes
that 2011 saw $100 billion in oil dollars and an estimated 94 billion
last year (these figures are in US dollars, not Iraqi dinar). The paper
notes that while Nouri's government boasts of all these riches (without
shame), the Iraqi people do without basic services and the security
situation deteriorates daily. Some day, Iraqis asking "where did all
the money go?" won't be denied an answer. First place people need to
look is Nouri's pockets.

Since 2008, when Maliki led a harsh crackdown on the Mahdi Army, a
Shia militia, the prime minister has tried to present himself as a
nationalist leader seeking to unify his country and evenly enforce the
rule of law. The rise of Maliki and the popularity he gained with Shia,
however, reveal the flaws of Iraq's new political system, which made
state institutions fiefdoms of patronage for sectarian political parties
rather than channels for delivering public services. Maliki tried to
earn legitimacy beyond just the Shia community, in particular seeking
the support of Sunni voters. His confrontation with Massoud Barzani, the
president of the semi-independent Iraqi Kurdistan region, over security
issues along the disputed border was primarily a move to win the
support of the Sunni population there, which is resentful of Kurdish
encroachment.But Maliki has squandered his ability to appeal to the country's
other sects and communities because of his paranoia and ideological bias
as a leader of Dawa, the Shia Islamist party. He blames external
interference for the current tensions, exploiting images of divisive
symbols such as flags of the Saddam era, the Free Syrian Army, and
Kurdistan, as well as photos of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip
Erdogan. And Maliki's record -- his targeting of Sunni politicians, his
selective use of law, his influence over the judiciary to ensure rulings
in his favor, and his close ties with Iran -- confirms that he is
prepared to use all means necessary to consolidate power.

All Iraq News reports
another last-ditch effort to save the $4 billion arms deal with
Russia. Maybe that will work out for Nouri? It won't help Iraq but if
he could ever close the deal he made months ago, he might be able to
convince others that his name on a contract means something (months and
months of struggle and doubt -- apparently). All Iraq News also notes
that there are now six outbreaks of avian flu (bird flu). Sadly, the
blame for this outbreak is being put on foreign workers in Iraq. That's
sad but not surprising when the country has huge unemployment and the
government keeps providing jobs to non-Iraqis.